This story leaves me wondering what went wrong, and just how fired or demoted the safety conscious pilot was after “his services” were rejected in the future.
The Prime Minister isn’t a king, he doesn’t get to disobey air safety laws on his whim. Blackberries transmit electromagnetic signals which can wind up jamming air traffic signals, or confusing electronic equipment in the cockpit. I hope the pilot tried to make a fuss about this, because as it stands the situation stinks. Why was Harper able to fire the pilot before the plane landed? He didn’t hire him himself I’m sure, so why did a yes-man “pilot hirer” under Harper’s control not tell the Prime Minister the danger of operating cell phones while in an airplane, and keep his pilot on staff?
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
pissed off | 09-Aug-06 at 11:05 pm | Permalink
hate to be a party pooper here but i pilot airplanes and, trust me on this one, cell phones cause about as much interference with navigation and radio equipment as your typical laptop computer.
in fact, i have my cell phone plugged right into my headset so i can talk hands-free while i enjoy the view from 10,000 feet.
i don’t really know what the fuss is about unless it’s to prevent air rage amongst passengers who are forced to listen to others talk annoyingly loud while on the phone…i mean, c’mon, it’s not like you’re talking into a tin can…
…but i digress…i’ll save that rant for a later time
as much as i like PMSH, i don’t necessarily agree with what he did to the pilot. rules are still rules and he should have maybe looked into having that policy changed (or at least exempted himself through the proper channels). air force 1 has its own set of crackberries that can be used in-flight…so obviously there’s other solutions.
Saskboy | 09-Aug-06 at 11:07 pm | Permalink
It’s not just that Harper apparently whined to an airline staffer, it’s that the staffer bowed to Prime Ministerial pressure apparently without asking the pilot what happened first.
Abandoned Stuff by Saskboy » Blog Archive » Water and cameras banned from planes - ninjas, not yet | 14-Aug-06 at 8:53 am | Permalink
[...] Stephen Harper, in retaliation against the blogosphere for criticizing him for getting a pilot fired when the captain asked Harper to put away his cell phone for the flight, is making sure no blogger gets pictures on a plane, or any other person gets to keep their cell phone. Take that Free Canada! How did we get from being concerned about box cutters and radical Arabs, to bottles of water and cell phones? I guess we took a hop, skip and a jump from laser pointers and shoes. I still say that next the airlines will ban clothing because it can be burned. But wait! So can hair… full body shave before you get on Air Canada? [...]
Chris Taylor | 16-Aug-06 at 3:36 pm | Permalink
Eays now, the outrage being generated here is hilarious. The pilot was definitely not fired, and if you parse the article carefully, Lawrence Martin carefully avoids using that term.
The PM does not fly aboard Air Canada Jazz like the plebes. He flies aboard a military VIP transport crewed by officers from the 412 or 436 Transport Squadrons out of Trenton, Ontario. The pilots would be fully-mission-qualified air force officers and one cannot simply eject them from the service on a whim. It might be entertaining to think that the PM actually wields that sort of oligarchical power, but there is not one squadron or wing commander in the CF today who would willingly part with a qualified and mission-capable pilot on the word of a mere politician (from ANY party).
It would not be out of the realm of possibility, however, for a politician to use back-channels to request — for whatever reason — that certain aircrews or pilots not be assigned to a particular mission. Depending on the crew rest situation and which aircrews are mission-capable on a given day, this request could be accepted by the wing command post, or rejected because no one else is available to fly.
If the only available aircrew contains the undesired pilot, then the pol has the choice to either fly with the plebes on commercial air, blow money to charter a plane, or accept the realities of scheduling and fly with a military pilot they’d rather not have. But nobody gets fired.
I am sure everyone can think of an example where the senior brass at their own place of work has requested explicitly or implicitly that certain assignments or projects stay out of the hands of certain departments or individuals because of their reputation for not getting things done, or doing things incorrectly, etc. If one’s boss is not an ass-kisser they will quite properly reply “tough beans, this is the best person/department for the job” or “tough beans, this is the only resource I have available”, and so on.
Please note that I am not defending Harper’s actions at all — merely pointing out that no pilot is even remotely close to losing their job over this. And depending on the depth of the rosters in those squadrons, the PM may not even have the luxury of making his request stick.
Saskboy | 16-Aug-06 at 3:56 pm | Permalink
Chris, “If the only available aircrew contains the undesired pilot, then the pol has the choice to either fly with the plebes on commercial air, blow money to charter a plane, or accept the realities of scheduling and fly with a military pilot they’d rather not have. But nobody gets fired.”
In other words, Harper throws a fit, or wastes money all because he doesn’t like a pilot that wouldn’t fall in line and was following air safety rules. Even if the pilot wasn’t let go in the employment sense, he’s still being inconvenienced by being “worked around”.
Chris Taylor | 17-Aug-06 at 7:32 am | Permalink
In the world of airlift being exempted from VIP missions is not exactly an inconvenience. Most guys would rather be flying “where the action is” than shuttling annoy pols around on dog and pnoy shows.
My guess is that it’s a load of crap, to be honest. With all of the comm gear on a VIP transport I kind of doubt they’d be too heavily concerned about a BlackBerry. Assuming that the BB *was* causing interference, how would any aircrew member be able to tell it’s Steve’s BB causing the issue, not the BB of one of the PMO staff, aides, or reporters travelling with him?
Too many gaps in the story I’m afraid.
Saskboy | 17-Aug-06 at 8:21 am | Permalink
Chris, the reporter said that a hostess asked the PM first because she probably saw him with it. That happens on flights I’ve been on. When he didn’t co-operate she told the pilot and so he asked then. It wasn’t due to interference being detected.
You could be right about the story being 99% wrong, because it set off my BS detector too. But if it did happen, and there’s nothing I’ve seen to prove this reporter is lying, then the BS is PMS Harper’s reaction.
Chris Taylor | 17-Aug-06 at 9:06 am | Permalink
Well on that (reaction, if true) we can agree. =)
I guess I lead a charmed life because I’ve been asked all of once to shut down my Treo during takeoff/landing. Every other flight I seem to get stuck beside some dingdong who does not lay down his BB for one second but spends the whole flight with thumbs blazing. And the attendants NEVER ask the random BB addicts I get stuck with to turn off their gear — even when they blatantly ignore the “we are beginning the approach, please return to your seats and turn off your electronic devices, yadda yadda” call. C’est la vie.
Saskboy | 17-Aug-06 at 9:42 am | Permalink
I’ve been naughty and left an electronic gadget on during take off and landing before, however it wasn’t a device designed to send electronic signals to a tower.